Under tough questioning from appeals judges Tuesday, a lawyer representing the state defended a Collier judge's decision to require former middle school teacher Andrea Kidder's defense to hand over blood-alcohol test results in her DUI manslaughter case.

At oral arguments, the three Second District Court of Appeals judges pressed the state as to why prosecutors needed the test results, and whether requiring disclosure of such results could eventually lead defendants to claim ineffective counsel.

A lawyer representing Kidder, charged in the November 2009 crash that killed 22-year-old Bree Kelly on Interstate 75, faced fewer pointed questions. Yet he had to contend with wording in criminal procedure rules that appears to support the Collier judge's decision.

At issue is whether Kidder's defense lawyers, who had a second blood-alcohol test done after questioning the accuracy of the first test, must hand over the results as part of the evidence-sharing process — even if they don't plan to use them at trial. Witnesses have said they saw Kidder, a former Oakridge Middle School teacher, consume no more than two beers at a Golden Gate Estates bar before the crash, in sharp contrast to the .196 blood-alcohol content, nearly two and a half times the legal limit, shown by tests run at a state lab.

Prosecutors point to Florida's rules of criminal procedure, which state defendants must turn over results of "scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons." In his order granting prosecutors' motion to compel disclosure of the results, Collier Circuit Judge Fred Hardt cited that part of the rules.

"It's pretty obvious what the rule states," Jonathan Hurley, an assistant attorney general representing the state, told the judges.

Kidder's lawyers say requiring the disclosure would put a chilling effect on lawyers, who would be fearful of searching for possible defense angles if they had to turn over potentially damaging results. Other parts to the state's criminal procedures exempt defense lawyers from handing over case-related materials that won't be used at trial.

"It would never be the criminal defendant's obligation to help the state, to corroborate evidence from the state's charge," Keith Upson, a lawyer for Kidder, told the judges.

The three appeals judges questioned Hurley about the potential fallout of defense lawyers deciding not to run scientific tests out of fear of the results.

"Aren't we considering a whole new area of ineffective counsel claims?" Judge Douglas Wallace asked Hurley.

Judge Chris Altenbernd questioned how prosecutors would plan to use the results. Hurley has said the results would prove whether the first test, run at a Florida Department of Law Enforcement lab, are correct.

Wallace and Altenbernd also pressed Hurley about whether other results, such as fingerprint identification and ballistic tests, must also be disclosed. Hurley replied tests containing "raw data" that don't need expert interpretation fall under the criminal procedure rules.

No date has been set for when the judges are expected to rule on the appeal. A case management conference is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 7.